Celebrating Atheism

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]

No.

Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.

[/quote]

I understand it perfectly and while its not quite horseshit, it is not the end all and be all that you imagine it to be.
[/quote]
If you did you would demonstrate perfect knowledge of it, but your demonstrative expression is shoddy at best. If you know it perfectly you sure as hell aren’t showing it. You damn sure haven’t made a single counter claim against it.

If you had bothered to read the responses you got you would no that there are serious objections which brings us back to, we dont know.

It doesn’t yeild the answer you want therefore you pretend the answer is not certain, but it is.

Actually, it brings us back to Kant, causality is a category of thinking, it is built in within you.

Epistemology isn’t a counter argument. The argument has valid premises and draws a valid conclusion from those premises. Categorical Imperative not withstanding, the argument is true. Having the capacity to understand something isn’t the same as actually understanding something.

That says a lot about you and next to nothing about the universe.

You certainly haven’t demonstrated any genius either. Even the best and the brightest don’t actually know much about the universe. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

A lot of the things you take for granted are just not so, or at least they are not proven to be so and yet you dance around that like a ballerina.

Like what?

If that convinces you, fine, no reason why it should convince anyone else.

It’s your prerogative if you wish to ignore basic logic. If you don’t find deductive logical arguments convincing than you’re pretty much reduced to emotive logic…It’s true or not true based on how you feel and what you want, not what logic necessitates. That’s fine by me, but it’s hardly compelling. You cannot make something not true by sheer will.

All you have to do is prove it wrong. I can do this all day.

[pat]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Kant was not a theist based on an a priori argument.
He was a fideist.
About “negative” and our ability to prove them : his position was that “existence is not a predicate”. The same shall apply to inexistence. [/quote]

I can say the same about moral law. You can really say ‘anything’ is or is not a predicate.
I don’t share the view that because concept and reality share all properties save for actual existence, that you cannot determine the difference. We can deductively prove existence, even if we cannot deductively prove a particular thing that appears to exist, actually exists. Anything can be a predicate, depending on what you are trying to establish.
He uses his moral law to establish his ‘highest good’ When you boil down his reasoning its similar to that of cosmology, just simply from the point of moral law.

[orion]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]

No.

Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.

[/quote]

I understand it perfectly and while its not quite horseshit, it is not the end all and be all that you imagine it to be.
[/quote]
If you did you would demonstrate perfect knowledge of it, but your demonstrative expression is shoddy at best. If you know it perfectly you sure as hell aren’t showing it. You damn sure haven’t made a single counter claim against it.

If you had bothered to read the responses you got you would no that there are serious objections which brings us back to, we dont know.

It doesn’t yeild the answer you want therefore you pretend the answer is not certain, but it is.

Actually, it brings us back to Kant, causality is a category of thinking, it is built in within you.

Epistemology isn’t a counter argument. The argument has valid premises and draws a valid conclusion from those premises. Categorical Imperative not withstanding, the argument is true. Having the capacity to understand something isn’t the same as actually understanding something.

That says a lot about you and next to nothing about the universe.

You certainly haven’t demonstrated any genius either. Even the best and the brightest don’t actually know much about the universe. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

A lot of the things you take for granted are just not so, or at least they are not proven to be so and yet you dance around that like a ballerina.

Like what?

If that convinces you, fine, no reason why it should convince anyone else.

It’s your prerogative if you wish to ignore basic logic. If you don’t find deductive logical arguments convincing than you’re pretty much reduced to emotive logic…It’s true or not true based on how you feel and what you want, not what logic necessitates. That’s fine by me, but it’s hardly compelling. You cannot make something not true by sheer will.

All you have to do is prove it wrong. I can do this all day. [/quote]

Dude, read your own post, if that does not do the trick, nothing will.

This brings us to Schopenhauer: A solipsist is a madman in an impenetrable fortress.

Not quite true in this case, but very a propos.

I like religious people who believe because they believe so much better.

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]

No.

Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.

[/quote]

I understand it perfectly and while its not quite horseshit, it is not the end all and be all that you imagine it to be.
[/quote]
If you did you would demonstrate perfect knowledge of it, but your demonstrative expression is shoddy at best. If you know it perfectly you sure as hell aren’t showing it. You damn sure haven’t made a single counter claim against it.

If you had bothered to read the responses you got you would no that there are serious objections which brings us back to, we dont know.

It doesn’t yeild the answer you want therefore you pretend the answer is not certain, but it is.

Actually, it brings us back to Kant, causality is a category of thinking, it is built in within you.

Epistemology isn’t a counter argument. The argument has valid premises and draws a valid conclusion from those premises. Categorical Imperative not withstanding, the argument is true. Having the capacity to understand something isn’t the same as actually understanding something.

That says a lot about you and next to nothing about the universe.

You certainly haven’t demonstrated any genius either. Even the best and the brightest don’t actually know much about the universe. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

A lot of the things you take for granted are just not so, or at least they are not proven to be so and yet you dance around that like a ballerina.

Like what?

If that convinces you, fine, no reason why it should convince anyone else.

It’s your prerogative if you wish to ignore basic logic. If you don’t find deductive logical arguments convincing than you’re pretty much reduced to emotive logic…It’s true or not true based on how you feel and what you want, not what logic necessitates. That’s fine by me, but it’s hardly compelling. You cannot make something not true by sheer will.

All you have to do is prove it wrong. I can do this all day. [/quote]

Dude, read your own post, if that does not do the trick, nothing will.

This brings us to Schopenhauer: A solipsist is a madman in an impenetrable fortress.

Not quite true in this case, but very a propos.

I like religious people who believe because they believe so much better. [/quote]

- YouTube

[orion]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

There are arguments for the existence of God and hence burden of proof has been fulfilled. The burden of proof now shifts to the one saying the arguments on the table are wrong.[/quote]

No.

Because your arguments prove nothing.
[/quote]
Yes the do. You inability to understand them, isn’t the fault of the argument.

[/quote]

I understand it perfectly and while its not quite horseshit, it is not the end all and be all that you imagine it to be.
[/quote]
If you did you would demonstrate perfect knowledge of it, but your demonstrative expression is shoddy at best. If you know it perfectly you sure as hell aren’t showing it. You damn sure haven’t made a single counter claim against it.

If you had bothered to read the responses you got you would no that there are serious objections which brings us back to, we dont know.

It doesn’t yeild the answer you want therefore you pretend the answer is not certain, but it is.

Actually, it brings us back to Kant, causality is a category of thinking, it is built in within you.

Epistemology isn’t a counter argument. The argument has valid premises and draws a valid conclusion from those premises. Categorical Imperative not withstanding, the argument is true. Having the capacity to understand something isn’t the same as actually understanding something.

That says a lot about you and next to nothing about the universe.

You certainly haven’t demonstrated any genius either. Even the best and the brightest don’t actually know much about the universe. I don’t see what that has to do with anything.

A lot of the things you take for granted are just not so, or at least they are not proven to be so and yet you dance around that like a ballerina.

Like what?

If that convinces you, fine, no reason why it should convince anyone else.

It’s your prerogative if you wish to ignore basic logic. If you don’t find deductive logical arguments convincing than you’re pretty much reduced to emotive logic…It’s true or not true based on how you feel and what you want, not what logic necessitates. That’s fine by me, but it’s hardly compelling. You cannot make something not true by sheer will.

All you have to do is prove it wrong. I can do this all day. [/quote]

Dude, read your own post, if that does not do the trick, nothing will.

This brings us to Schopenhauer: A solipsist is a madman in an impenetrable fortress.

Not quite true in this case, but very a propos.

I like religious people who believe because they believe so much better. [/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A [/quote]